Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women but a Christian man cannot marry a Muslim woman. The constitutional provisions also welcome a Christian to embrace Islam, but when a Muslim converts to Christianity, the penalty is death.

Great. Now the Kamikaze is an expert on the Ku’ran.
Look slick…I worked at embassies and residences with these folks for 5 years and never so much as had a rub with any of them due to my religious beliefs.
How, exactly, do you dismiss deep Primitive Baptists for killing off abortion doctors? Is that how you judge the rest of the entirity of Baptists?
I suggest the author and you imerse yourselves in a heart to heart with David Ramadan who is the ethnic outreach chair for the party. Small minds like yours are the reason we keep getting our asses handed to us. These folks are not all radical, and they’re our newest citizens. Perhaps you two could get with the program and enlighten yourselves.

BM,
Yup. I see it. Total parity. You are soooooo spot on. Forget them Baptist and all them conservative Christians.

There have been abortion 6 incidents in the US with 9 dead. 5 of the 6 episodes occurred between 1993 and 1998. Guess what? The Christian community decried this behavior and it stopped. The recent event in 2009 was an outlier as well.

In the other end of the crazy spectrum, those poor misunderstood Muslims. In that bunch we have had over 15 THOUSAND incidents, with a body count close to 100,000. Imans all over the world are calling for MORE violence.

Yup. Bulletproof you are just ever so clear headed. You are just so fair in your analysis. How do you stand looking at your bad self in the mirror? The awesomeness must just blind you.

Come to think of it the small minded ignorant bigot fits you a whole lot better.

BM,
One more thing, instead of changing the subject the next time someone mentions some facts you ain’t jiggy with – by letting your sorry ass bigotry show, and then using some anecdotal bullshit like “I was never attacked!” to back it up. Try some research and you will just maybe come up with an intelligent argument for a change. Runt.

“We shall have peace… We shall have peace, when you answer for the burning of the Westfold, and the children that lie dead there! We shall have peace, when the lives of the soldiers whose bodies were hewn even as they dead against the gates of the Hornberg, are avenged! When you hang from a gibbit for the sport of your own crows…! We shall have peace.”

Runt , indeed. From behind the keyboard, at that! LMAO.
Everyone knows me. But few seem to have seen your bad ass.
You are the reason we have to defend the party to the masses. Crazy bastards like you and the Larouche message tarnish us like nothing else.

If the particular muslim you’re addressing is indeed a radical- I’m right there with you.
But to blemish an entire segment of the population because of the actions of a mere percentage is indeed idiotic and small-minded.

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

I think the last sentence of that sums it up pretty well.

Personally, I am not religious, but I have no problem with others practicing whatever their conscience compels them to so long as it doesn’t lead them to violate the rights of others.

The only major religion, the practice of which still causes egregious violations of the human rights of its followers and non-followers, is Islam.

By and large Christianity and Judaism have adapted to modernity, some exceptions notwithstanding, but Islam still has a huge percentage of its adherents stuck in a Dark Age mentality.

BM,
As for the rest of it, you really should think just a bit you bigot. Equating conservative Christians to Islamic Terrorists is oh soooo sad. It is a Democrat talking point too. hmmmm. It is also the knee jerk reaction of a bigot.

More opsies on the facts front: Larouche is a Democrat. Oh well. Maybe you will get all this complicated stuff straight … someday.

The Islamic world is far and away more tolerant of the violence espoused by al Queda than the Christian community was with the lost SIX idiots who committed murder. We recoiled from it. Note the difference in the number of zeros at the end of the numbers. Not too much back slapping. No pastors in the pulpit calling for more of the same. hmmm. No comparison. Is it just too obvious for your little pea brain?

You are the horses ass who drew the connection, but am I the small minded one? LMAO indeed.

Jacob, jacob, jacob…
So much to correct, and I have so little time.
You skipped over the “LMAO” to arrive at the conclusion that you hit a nerve. Doesn’t exactly make you the brightest bulb in the box, now does it?

You’ve never actually read the ku’ran, so you really don’t know what it says.All your analysis is thereby “heresay” until you commit to an honest read of the book.

And you somehow stumbled upon a sentence in which I absolutely stated that LaRouche was a republican, even though I never typed such a thing.
Slow down, read s-l-o-w-e-r and half of that reading comprehension will disappear.

But then again, neither are you. You’re one of the Paulbot single issue squawkers.

Written by Wolverine about 7 years ago.

Enough! Enough! Both you guys have got to stop drinking on Mondays! Keep this up and I’ll recommend that Joe pile you into his SUV, drive you out to the old dueling field in Bladensburg, and let you flail at each other with a couple of very large ku’rans. Once you’ve had enough of that, we can all get back to winning a couple of vital elections and trying to save this country of ours from certain people who believe in no holy book whatsover except one written by Saul Alinsky.

W,
I wll not stop drinking. It aint happening. Nope. As for playing nice with the BM, steaming pile that he is … well. OK. I guess BM is better than Rahm Immanuel or Shrillary. There. I said some thing nice about the BM.

Jacob’s ideology on “some” points is a tad better than the SEIU drones.
Satisfied?

Written by Cathymac about 7 years ago.

I am feeling the love!

Written by Wolverine about 7 years ago.

Cathymac, those two now look like they are all ready to sit down amicably and share one of Mama’s sweet tater pies. As Mrs. Wolverine’s mother used to tell me, when her husband and his brothers and brothers-in-law got together, they used to beat each other to a pulp just for bragging rights. But let an outsider do anything at all to anyone in the family, and that outsider had better have a good medical plan.

Hmmm… While I did mean to have people look at what is there, I did not mean for the discussion to be mean spirited.

The point I was making is that the laws of a country (not just a few people that are on a fringe, but the actual laws of at least one country … and several others from what I have read) call for the death penalty for anyone to convert from Islam to Christianity, but not the other way around. That isn’t a fringe group. When a country becomes controlled through numbers (enough of the population becomes Muslim) to change the laws, the laws call for the death penalty for converting from Islam.

I don’t see how that can be called a “fringe group” in Islam. When they are in power, the mandate death to anyone who is “apostate” in their eyes. I cannot see any religion which holds to such a doctrine as a religion of peace (including those “Christian” denominations that in times past held to the same mindset).

If you close your eyes to what is true, then you are more blind than those born without eyes.

Written by Wolverine about 7 years ago.

I agree with your premise about the Christian past, Brian. Those of the Christian faith who once practiced this same kind of violence against apostates and those of other religions were not, as far as I can see, taking inspiration from the Bible itself but from their own warped interpretations of their own religion. Those who burned John Hus at the stake (Catholics) or drove the Anabaptists into Lake Zurich to drown (Calvinists), for instance, were not following Biblical injunctions as they claimed. They had a skewered sense of their own faith and were operating in an era of a deadly mixture of secular power and religious faith. That first came to the fore after the era of Gregory the Great, when the Church finally managed to end a situation in which the state controlled the medieval church leadership, eventually reaching the opposite in many cases where the church could interfere strongly in secular governance — indeed, in a situation where the church itself became a secular power on the Italian peninsula. This same kind of deadly and autocratic mixture happened in Geneva under Calvin, in Holland under the Reformed Church, and to a lesser extent in Northern Germany and Scandinavia. Somehow we managed to crawl out of that false mindset, but only after some very bloody centuries and a resurgance of the primacy of the secular state in matters of justice. The pendulum swung, albeit taking a long time to do so.

How that same pendulum will swing with regard to the Islamic faith is truly a vital modern question. As you stated, unlike the persecutors within the Christian faith in the distant past, the Islamic radicals of the present can, indeed, point to specific passages in the Ku’ran to justify their versions of theology. Moreover, in many countries we are seeing, in my opinion, a redux of that same deadly mixture of the secular and the temporal which was the bane of Christianity for centuries.

One would think that at some point the secular with a mandate for equal justice is going to have to reassert itself. I lived for many years among Moslems who paid little literal heed to those same passages of the Ku’ran. They were not happy when one of their own became a convert to another faith but they seldom, if ever, took revenge. In fact, there were Christian missionaries among them, albeit few in number and usually very unsuccessful. Now, one could deduce that these people were non-radical in their faith. However, I sometimes wonder if their overt liberalism was not the result of being controlled for 100 years, more or less, by Christian colonial powers with little tolerance for inter-religious conflict on their watches. This same liberal attitude did seem to carry over for many years into the post-colonial period.

Recently, however, I have seen changes in some parts of the same area. Recent and often very deadly inter-religious violence in Northern Nigeria is a case in point. I have to ask myself if this is a case of these people reverting to attitudes of the pre-colonial period or if — more likely to my way of thinking — their communities have been infiltrated from the outside by the more radical modern elements, aided both by modern technology in travel and communications and by a weakening of secular power in unstable political conditions.

It seems to me that the secular power is going to have to reassert itself, especially in those nations where there is a religious mix but hopefully in all countries. Is there a way in which we can help the secular power to do that? The situation with the new governments in Iraq and Afghanistan may be a critical test. Can they hold on to a form of democracy in which, for instance, women are no longer subjugated by the old tenets of the Islamic faith and where the secular state guarantees equal protection for all faiths? If these states fail after all our military and civil efforts, there would seem to me to be fewer chances for other Islamic states to arrive at the same place. If literal interpretations of the Ku’ran gain the upper hand over the secular state, I can see nothing in the future but a state of continuing warfare between the Islamic world and the rest of us. That is truly a daunting future.

The only other hope I can see is if the Islamic world somehow undergoes a sharp demarcation between the old and the new in the same way that Christianity is separated by the Old Testament and the New Testament. As a Christian, I believe that the extreme punishments called for in the Old Testament with regard to personal behavior and irreligious actions were superceded by the dictates of Christ in the New Testament. Yes, many of the “laws” in the Old Testament still apply to each of us personally; but, in my view, the extrme punishments have been replaced by justice and forgiveness. Can Islam find such a demarcation in the progress of its own history? That to me is a question beyond all questions.

Over the years, I have had many friends and colleagues of the Islamic faith, some of them very dear friends. By contrast, I have also been engaged in fighting back against Islamic radicals who desired to kill my fellow Americans. That is not an easy personal psychological situation. The friendships have helped me to avoid developing a hatred for the Islamic faith; but, I will tell you, I desire strongly that the faith itself would put a stop to those within it who seek to kill or punish me just because I have another religion and another culture. I do not like living in this love-hate dilemma.

Written by Brian Withnell about 7 years ago.

The transformation of the Christian faith occurred most visibly when the church recognized the separate spheres of operation. While all of a Christian’s life is to be ordered by his view of God and the Bible, the church is not operating in the realm of the civil magistrate and the civil magistrate does not operate in the realm of the church.

The original Westminster Confession of Faith when written in the mid-17th century had a much larger tie between the government and the state. In the late 18th century, in this country, the document was greatly modified to fit the change of governmental institutions, with a realization that while both the civil magistrate and the church should care for each other, neither was tied to each other. (The church no longer excommunicated civil leaders for actions in the civil government, and the government no longer had any claim to “divine right” for rule.)

I totally agree that if Muslims want to characterize their religion as a religion of peace, they need to start discipline of violence in their own house first. We can hope they will see the need, and respond to it. Much like the outcry from even the most conservative Christian groups when violence is used by so called Christians against abortionists. While I think abortion is a heinous evil, it is not illegal in this country, and even if it were, the civil magistrate ought to be the one that carries out punishment for law breaking, not some vigilante using violence.

Thank you Wolverine. Your perspective reinforces what I have observed…and I know you’ve been there.
Muslims in and around the Embassies were thankful that we worshipped a God at all…and that whether you call him Allah or simply God, you were connected in a belief and a passion for the same higher power.
And you say it much better than I. There ARE passages in the Ku’ran that COULD be misinterpreted by someone who has an agenda that they need them to fit. They weren’t written for that agenda. Someone had to apply a bastardization lens to get what they got.

We don’t shoot “these people” because it is wrong to do so, and WE are not barbarians.

If they do not have sympathy, teach sympathy. If you do not like their culture, try to introduce them to yours. This is the same garbage we heard about Italians and Irish and Germans at some point or another.

They have been assimilated. Their cultural and technological distinctiveness have been added to ours. The muslims can fight, but their resistance is futile.